ArticleOncotarget2017
A network meta-analysis of eight chemotherapy regimens for treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Inhibition of PKM2 Enhances Sensitivity of Olaparib to Ovarian Cancer Cells and Induces DNA Damage.International journal of biological sciences · 2022Article
- Fibroblast growth factor receptor 4 (FGFR4) as detected by immunohistochemistry is associated with postoperative residual disease in ovarian cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2019Article
- Efficacy and safety of traditional chemotherapies for patients with ovarian neoplasm: a network meta-analysis.Oncotarget · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared the short-term efficacies of different chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) through pair-wise and network meta-analyses (NMA). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified in a comprehensive online literature search met our inclusion criteria. Direct and indirect evidence was combined to compare odds ratios (OR) and surfaces under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) across the different treatment regimens. Twelve eligible RCTs were finally included, involving eight regimens (Paclitaxel + Carboplatin [PC], Gemcitabine + Carboplatin [GC], Carboplatin, Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin + Carboplatin [PLD + Carboplatin], Paclitaxel, Paclitaxel + Carboplatin + Topotecan [PC + Topotecan], Paclitaxel + Carboplatin + Epirubicin [PC + Epirubicin] and Docetaxel + Carboplatin [DC]). The NMA results revealed that in terms of overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR), PC (ORR: OR=2.59, 95%CI=1.20-6.22; DCR: OR=2.58, 95%CI=1.05-6.82) and GC (ORR: OR=2.08, 95%CI=1.08-4.37; DCR: OR=2.43, 95%CI=1.07-5.80) were more effective against AOC than Carboplatin alone. Similarly, PC (OR=0.21, 95%CI=0.05-0.69), GC (OR=0.31, 95%CI=0.09-0.90) and PLD + Carboplatin (OR=0.22, 95%CI=0.04-0.92) slowed disease progression better than Carboplatin alone. We also found that PC was more efficacious against AOC than Carboplatin or Paclitaxel single-agent chemotherapy. Combination chemotherapy is thus recommended for AOC, and should guide subsequent drug development and treatment strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.